• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Obsessed with realism and logic - Resolve my inner conflict

Peregrine

Troubadour
I will list two supernatural things in my fantasy:

1. The potion of antivenom.

- The potion of antivenom is made by mixing powdered alicorn (the horn of a unicorn) , the atter (venom) of a dragon and a bezoar (a stone found in the intestines of a ibex).

2. Ettin (giant) magicians have the ability to control the elements of nature.

- Ettins are human-skinned giants who live in nomadic tribes. Why do ettin magicians have the ability to control fire, frost and wind, but other races do not? The reason behind this is that the beliefs of the ettins are similar to the Orc shamans in Warcraft universe, the ettins worship the elements and their god, they worship fire and the god of fire, they worship frost and the god of frost, they worship wind and the god of the sky. They worship both elements and gods. Why do they worship elements and gods, but why elements specifically? They worship them because they want to manipulate weather for their needs, they worship gods to appease the gods so they don't cause snowstorms, thunderstorms and windstorms, the most important god to them although, is the fertility goddess, she is not a goddess of elements, but the Mother Nature that promises rain and food.
Don't get me wrongly, the ettins do not get powers from gods, they have developed this ability because of their traditions, they believe that they get magic from gods but that does not mean that they are right.

I have included supernatural in my fantasy, but I am obsessed with making it realistic. Its not that I need fantasy to be 100% realistic, but I just can't comprehend some concepts.

The biggest thing that bothers me in fantasy when someone creates things from thin air, I don't know why but its the most annoying thing that I have to deal with it.

I keep telling to myself why should I care when mythologies are full of utter nonsense, for example a Norse story tells that the Nine Worlds were created from the body of Ymir and that the tree Yggdrassil carries on itself all Nine Worlds. But to a modern reader this is just utter nonsense, the viewer would ask, how did the body of Ymir become a tree (Yggdrassil), there are no even explanations of that.

I am a too rational type of person, I think too logically and sometimes can't comprehend too unrealistic concepts such as shapeshifting.

Many of you people rely on creativity and do not rely on logic, so you don't have that problems, I am saying the problem is my personality, its like my personality sometimes conflicts with my wishes, for example pyrokinesis is cool, but I hesitate to include it because its "unrealistic".

To make my final point, I just want to say that there are two sides of my personality that produce a inner conflict:

1) the first side of me says to me, you can have supernatural elements, but don't go too far in unrealism, the first part of me says that shapeshifting and immaterial beings such as ghosts seem like nonsense that can't be accepted in my fantasy.
A magician creates fire out of nothing, the first part of me responds, this is just utter nonsense, you cannot create something out of nothing!

2) The second side of me says, why does it matter if there's shapeshifting or not you already added supernatural creatures such as ettins (which means that you already broke the rules of reality), why do you think that shapeshifting makes a difference? If its fantasy why do you care if it is realistic or not when neither yours world nor for example Tolkien's Middle-Earth could ever happen in reality. It is a product of human mind and never could such world exist in reality even if our Earth had a alternate reality.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
To me, this is entirely dependent on the type of fantasy you're writing, and internal consistency within the world. There's no wrong answer for which approach to use, broadly speaking.

Having fantasy-type creatures alone doesn't prevent you from writing a realistic story. It depends on the boundaries of those creatures, and the extent to which you use rational explanation to support them when they fall outside the scope of what is normal in the real world. You can go to either extreme if you're consistent. The story can have wildly implausible, open-ended magic if it set it up that way, or you can try to impose rules that constrain magic and the supernatural, or even try to make it plausible in "scientific" terms. Where you run into a problem is if you start with the latter, and then start violating your own rules.

Since there is no wrong approach, I think the answer is that you write the type of story that most appeals to you. If you're conflicted because you see the appeal of both, then it can be difficult. Think to your favorite fantasy novels--do they choose one approach over the other? If so, maybe you favor that approach more than you think.
 

Holman

Minstrel
1) the first side of me says to me, you can have supernatural elements, but don't go too far in unrealism, the first part of me says that shapeshifting and immaterial beings such as ghosts seem like nonsense that can't be accepted in my fantasy.
A magician creates fire out of nothing, the first part of me responds, this is just utter nonsense, you cannot create something out of nothing!

2) The second side of me says, why does it matter if there's shapeshifting or not you already added supernatural creatures such as ettins (which means that you already broke the rules of reality), why do you think that shapeshifting makes a difference? If its fantasy why do you care if it is realistic or not when neither yours world nor for example Tolkien's Middle-Earth could ever happen in reality. It is a product of human mind and never could such world exist in reality even if our Earth had a alternate reality.

Would it help if you considered it as an exchange of energy - energy is never destroyed it is converted into one thing or another. Whether that be magic or shapeshifting - the start of a logical solution for you.
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Many of you people rely on creativity and do not rely on logic, so you don't have that problems...

Well...thanks, I think...

I think I must object to this. While it is a given that I am often setting to write something in the nature of fantasy, and by being fantasy, such things as magic and all sorts of unexplainable stuff can happen, I don't think it is the case that it occurs without logic, or a lot of thinking about it. I think instead, part of the job we undertake is to still try to write realistically what might occur with all the above being true.

I further don't think there are too many magic systems that create things out of nothing. Many magic systems subscribe to a type of energy that is tapped into. Some have this invisibly at hand, others have it pulled from other places or other objects, but there is a fuel being spent. Even many creation stories do not have things being made out of nothing. And the nine worlds story is not utter non-sense. It contains a story that served as a way of explaining things to the people to whom there were such questions at the time. Sure it is true, that there is no dead giant with a tree growing out of him, but I am not sure that was ever the point. The point was more likely along the lines of trying explain things for which there is clean way to explain it, and as a method of teaching life lessons to those of another generation.

Putting all that aside, your question about how can I have things that don't seem like they could possibly happen just begs from me, why have you created something where this cannot possibly happen? Create something where it can, and then you don't have an issue.

Are two-headed giants likely? No. But in a world with two-headed giants, they certainly are. So put yourself in that world, and tell your tale.
 
Last edited:
An awful lot of real life is unrealistic.

People speak of "personal connections," but these do not exist. At least, there's no direct conduit between people, hidden tethers of emotion realistically connecting people. Take two people who say they have a personal connection and simultaneously run a hula hoop, top to bottom, down each. Nothing is snagged. No "connection" is broken, heh. But what is meant by "personal connection"? A lot that isn't understood–not understood logically, that is. By most people.

Take the gambler who has lost 5 games of craps in a row; surely the next toss of the dice should be a win, right, since he's gotten through the statistical chances for losses already and a win is therefore more likely on that next toss? Heh.

Take me. My grandfather died many years ago, but for me he "feels" present in this world still, perhaps still living that 45 minutes away. Logical? Nope.

Most of us, I'd wager, don't go through life thinking in terms of logic. However, what logic do I have for making such a statement? Heh. But if something comes along that absolutely breaks my normal experience of the world--well, that's something that can throw my mind for a loop. The broken thing might not even be a logical understanding; I had a massive nervous and emotional and mental breakdown once, after a relationship failed. Totally illogical. On the other hand, a couple months ago I was sitting at my desk late in the evening and heard a huge pop, turned around, and saw two balls of lightning in the air not far from me, not on a wall but just there in the air, one after another. This was inside my home. Freaked me out. Probably came in through phone lines and an empty phone jack not far from where they appeared. More evidence discovered later: fried phones. This experience, in that moment, was entirely unrealistic, heh, something I'd never experienced before.
 
So more on that^....

The average person will not be able to explain how smart phones work. How is that image made on the screen? How does it (the phone) know* when you've touched the screen here, swiped in this direction? The same could be said about much of our technology, especially the more high tech it is. Heck, an awful lot of people couldn't explain an internal combustion engine, but they drive cars anyway.

Basically, we accept as real what works for us without always needing a logical explanation of the function and effects. We accept as real what we see every day. A fantasy world doesn't need to be altogether different. If the people there accept it, and we are able to live in that world through their eyes, is there any reason why we must have a logical explanation for what occurs in that world and the experiences of those people? If you read a contemporary novel, do you stop and ask how such things as smartphones can possibly exist in that world, heh?

I do think it's possible to break immersion in a fantasy world, so I'll give that caveat. But maybe the logic of the things happening in that world—our real-world logic, such as it is, being applied to those fantastic phenomena—might not be the only factor or even the most significant factor in this break in immersion.

*Edit: So I used "know" to describe the "smart" phone. Heh. Logical?
 
Last edited:

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
To make my final point, I just want to say that there are two sides of my personality that produce a inner conflict:

1) the first side of me says to me, you can have supernatural elements, but don't go too far in unrealism, the first part of me says that shapeshifting and immaterial beings such as ghosts seem like nonsense that can't be accepted in my fantasy.
A magician creates fire out of nothing, the first part of me responds, this is just utter nonsense, you cannot create something out of nothing!

2) The second side of me says, why does it matter if there's shapeshifting or not you already added supernatural creatures such as ettins (which means that you already broke the rules of reality), why do you think that shapeshifting makes a difference? If its fantasy why do you care if it is realistic or not when neither yours world nor for example Tolkien's Middle-Earth could ever happen in reality. It is a product of human mind and never could such world exist in reality even if our Earth had a alternate reality.

I wrestled with similar issues as my magic system evolved. At first, it was straightforward AD&D magic (but then, I was thinking more 'campaign' than 'writing.') From there, I moved to the Warhammer point system. Better, but still not quite what I was after. In the midst of all this, I was reading a huge pile upper double digits) of books dealing with magic, occult, paranormal research, and whatnot.

Finally, I combined the two. I took the most often claimed paranormal abilities - telekinesis, ESP/Remote Viewing, levitation, and some others (manifestations of physical objects, faith healing, and pyrokinesis) that had at least something in the way of quasi-objective research or evidence going for them. Then I codified these abilities and merged them with my worlds history:

Many, many ,millennia ago, utterly alien entities terraformed a number of planets. Later, they imported lifeforms from elsewhere, including sapient's like humans. Some of these races were employed as brute labor, others were simply turned loose. No small numbers were used as experimental subjects. The best became the trusted servitors of these aliens. Now, much of the alien tech required a measure of PSI skill to use. After some rather brutal experimentation, the aliens imbued their chosen servants (and a number of experimental subjects) with greatly enhanced psi ability. Then, millennia later, the aliens regime imploded, and the subject races were left to fend for themselves. Those with enhanced PSI talent became the first wizards, developing their abilities far beyond what was intended.

These additional abilities included illusions, runes, convoluted rituals, and summoning.

Summoning was drawn from me readings on ancient magic's: the big thing every wizard worth his wand was after was the 'true name' of a demon, deity, or spirit, in the belief that knowing such a name granted one authority over the entity in question. That, in turn, slid right in with my longstanding interest in Lovecraftian abominations. Summoning magic is a direct link to these creatures, and employing it is extremely hazardous (not to mention forbidden).
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I think lots of us feel this tension. We want our magic and monsters to be mega-cool, but we also want them to make sense. That's fine. Nothing to worry about.

And certainly no reason not to write! Ultimately, you write it and your beta readers, editor, agent, readers, will tell you if it made sense or not.
 

Futhark

Inkling
I had the same problem. My analytical, systems driven mind needed a functional explanation for magic. When wizards throw fireballs I think, where did the fuel come from, how was it ignited? You can't freeze blast something, you have to absorb the heat out of it. Eventually, I focused on magic as an energy, like gravity, and brainstormed ideas that way. One concept came from string theory, or parallel universes, and wizards can tap into them to draw the required energy and alter their reality that way. Imagine a universe at absolute zero. It would have an endless capacity to absorb and disperse heat.

The model I chose was an artefact that manipulates time and space in an abnormal way. All wizards are descended from the first god-like being that possessed it, many eras ago. They can connect and draw on its powers wherever they are.

I found this process worked for me, as I could then imagine the realistic implications and limitations of this power from one unrealistic, or fantastic, premise.

Happy world building.
 

Peregrine

Troubadour
Originally Posted by DragonOfTheAerie View Post
I struggle quite a lot with this kind of thing. I have two sides of me at war; on the one hand, the scientifically-minded side who wants everything to be factually accurate and is driven mad when I have to bend the rules of physics and nature to justify something; on the other hand, the whimsical, imaginative side who wants to go wild inventing strange and bizarre and often illogical things. It can make world-building painful

This is exactly how I feel too.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
As someone who used to be more concerned about this sort of thing, to me it is useful to remember that when it comes to plausibility or realism, there's not a great deal of difference in the various approaches. It's all a matter of where you put the black box and how much you want to dress up the hand-waving in scientific jargon.

Take the string theory idea, mentioned above. I started a short story with the same basic idea as a source for energy for magic. But you still run into problems. First, as I understand string theory, apart from some leakage of gravity, you're basically confined to 'branes within the various dimensions. There's no movement of particles, no flow of energy. So right away you're conflicting with string theory, you've just moved the black box from point A (where does this power comes from) to point B (exactly how do they get this power from these other dimensions). You've also got to deal with stability in these other dimensions, and ultimately with the fact that you're increasing or decreasing the net energy of our universe if you're affecting it in this way.

If you don't use extra dimensions or some other tactic to open the system, you've got thermodynamics problems. You can get around this drawing power from within the system at point X for use at point Y, but how many people think of the long-term effects of that, and how many people think of how you have to balance it out in terms of entropy versus localized order? If you don't consider those things, you're just moving the black box again.

And in none of these systems that I've seen is there a compelling, plausible explanation for how the wizards or other magic-using people are able to do what they're doing at the most basic level. It's another black box.

So ultimately you're left with only story considerations. What aesthetic are you going for? These scientific pseudo-explanations can be very cool and add some nice flavor to a world. But understanding that this is basically all you're doing, in the end, can free you from the idea that you have to do it. In the end, you aren't creating anything more plausible, in terms of magic systems, then your typical Forgotten Realms novel.
 

TheKillerBs

Maester
It is my personal belief that magic is by definition unrealistic and realistic magic is an oxymoron. However, unrealistic does not mean illogical. Magic, I believe, needs some degree of internal logic, and adherence to that logic. If something is established as "how it works", then it must work like that every time. Even if the whole point of the magic system is that it's unpredictable, then there should be a different effect most of the time, and to avoid turning it into Deus Ex Machina, it should backfire at least half the time.
 
Years ago, a friend introduced me to the idea of the Magic Cloud. That term might have different meanings for different people, but my friend used it in a particular way for describing complex systems and the flow of logic. Let's say multiple factors, or starting conditions, feed into a complex process and the output or result is always x, y, and/or z. We don't really need to know what that complex process is, or how it works, and we can still know the output will always be x, y, and/or z, just based off of experience.

As a general concept, this works for smartphones. We don't have to know how they work, just what will happen when we swipe or touch a link.

The same can be true of the fantasy creations we use in our books. This is also where internal consistency comes into play: If x, y, z can be done through magic, and only those things, then suddenly introducing a or b near the end of the story might break immersion. If we've already explained that a dragon's scales can't be penetrated by any known weapon, having the hero slice through the scales in a fit of rage later in the book with his normal sword would break immersion. Why do dragon scales work that way? A magic cloud. We don't know why, but only that they work that way.

In a way, this is using our external, real world logic to understand and accept what happens in a fantasy world. Establishing that f, p, q can be done to Fantasy Creation Omega and the results will always be x, y, and/or z is how our logic works, even if Fantasy Creation Omega is a magic cloud.

But there will always be people who look at Fantasy Creation Omega and say, "That's an unreal thing!" and scoff at it. Dragons? Impossible! Magic? Impossible! Elves? Impossible! These are the people you probably can never please, so trying to please them would be a waste of time. If you yourself are of that same type, then I'd suggest maybe not being so much of an absolutist about Fantasy Creation Omega, heh, or else relax into just accepting that magic cloud but look at ways to make it plausible, give it a set of parameters and stick to those parameters without trying to find a logical reason for its very existence. If you can't do this, then find some other kind of Fantasy Creation Omega that will not be such a hurdle for you.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
This is also where internal consistency comes into play: If x, y, z can be done through magic, and only those things, then suddenly introducing a or b near the end of the story might break immersion. If we've already explained that a dragon's scales can't be penetrated by any known weapon, having the hero slice through the scales in a fit of rage later in the book with his normal sword would break immersion. Why do dragon scales work that way? A magic cloud. We don't know why, but only that they work that way.

This is the only thing that really matters. The rest is just what window dressing you want to put around it.
 

Futhark

Inkling
@Steerpike. Yeah, I know where your coming from. I mentioned string theory as a concept starting point, the black box, as you aptly put it. Not something that needs to be rationally explained, but a basis to build an internal logic from. My black box is the artefact, as well as the effect it has on humans. It defies the laws of space/time as we understand them, and provides a seemingly inexhaustible power supply. As usual, you guys have summed it up so well I have very little to say :D
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
@Steerpike. Yeah, I know where your coming from. I mentioned string theory as a concept starting point, the black box, as you aptly put it. Not something that needs to be rationally explained, but a basis to build an internal logic from. My black box is the artefact, as well as the effect it has on humans. It defies the laws of space/time as we understand them, and provides a seemingly inexhaustible power supply. As usual, you guys have summed it up so well I have very little to say :D

It's still a cool idea. I like the strong theory concept.
 

SMAndy85

Minstrel
"Magic is just science we don't understand yet." - Arthur C. Clarke

Don't know if that's the correct quote, but it's at least a paraphrased thing that fits the conversation here.

Realism is something that I like. Logic, and science. It's one thing to have the people of your world not know how magic works, but that's because they just don't understand it yet. What is important is that you, the writer, know how it works.

But I think as much as creativity is a driving force, a lot of people need a reason for it to work that way as well. In my story-world, the planet people live on is tide-locked to the sun, meaning one side is perpetually under the sun, and the other is not. I spent a good few weeks researching tide-locking to finalise the setting itself, how it would work, and what would the likely effects be. It gave me ideas about weather patterns, and how a planet would survive the atmosphere being stripped by the sun like that, given a slow rotation means a lower magnetic field. I've fixed this in my head, and now know how it would work, and to me, its feasible in science.

To the people on the planet, they see the two gods, light and dark, as both completely deadly. If you travel too far towards the light, you die. Too far to the dark, you die. They also believe that if the light in the sky were to move, they would either be under it, or under the darkness, and that would kill them. They don't understand that a rotating planet is a perfectly fine place to be, and that they would likely have even more land to live on.

I like the comments about conservation of energy. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

So, for someone throwing a fireball, why can't they draw in the heat from a large area around them, creating an almost negligible change in temperature for an area of a mile around, in order to create enough heat to throw a fireball that explodes with a range of 10 feet around a target, and is hot enough to roast flesh and vaporise wood?

Likewise, the armageddon butterfly theory covers wind movement. A butterfly flaps its wings in Australia, causing a tornado in America. A magician calls up a tornado to send at an enemy army, and the counter-effect is that every butterfly on the planet falls for one flap of its wings, where that air movement is no longer affecting them.

Perhaps more powerful magicians affect smaller things to get what they want, where in the same examples as above, an inexperienced magician might cause a snow-storm in a nearby city when he calls a fireball, or a patch of air is sucked away, creating a low pressure area that pulls in all the storms for a thousand miles to one area, just so he can create his tornado.

If magic comes from the gods, then when someone casts a spell, it is the deity's energy that is used. The deity is separate to the universe in a physical sense, so you don't need to explain where their power comes from, as they can each be moving energy from different universes.
 
Top